Accelerated procedure


Country Report: Accelerated procedure Last updated: 31/03/21


General (scope, grounds for accelerated procedures, time limits)

The IPA provides in Article 49(1) that the application for international protection can be rejected as manifestly unfounded in an accelerated procedure if the applicant clearly does not qualify for international protection and the legally defined reasons for such a decision exist.

In line with Article 52 IPA, such reasons exist where:

  1. During the procedure the applicant only stated facts that are irrelevant for the examination of the claim;
  2. The applicant comes from a Safe Country of Origin;
  3. The applicant misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding important information or documents about his identity or nationality, which could influence the decision;
  4. It is likely that the applicant purposely destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document which could help establish his or her identity or nationality;
  5. The applicant’s claims are clearly inconsistent, contradictory, false, implausible and contradict the sufficiently verified country of origin information making his or her claim that he or she qualifies for international protection clearly unconvincing;
  6. The applicant applied for international protection only in order to delay or prevent the enforcement of a removal decision;
  7. The applicant entered the territory of the Republic of Slovenia illegally or unlawfully extended his or her stay and without good reason failed to come forward to the authorities, or did not apply for international protection as soon as possible given the circumstances of their entry;
  8. The applicant refuses to comply with the obligation to submit their fingerprints in accordance with the Eurodac Regulation;
  9. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant presents a danger to public order, public or national safety, or if he or she is removed in accordance with national law for valid reasons of public safety or public order.

Pursuant to a recent ruling of the Administrative Court, in order to reject an application as manifestly unfounded, it is not sufficient to establish the applicability of one of these grounds. The authorities must also cumulatively conclude that the applicant clearly does not fulfil the requirements for international protection.[1]

As in the regular procedure, the competent authority in the accelerated procedure is the Migration directorate of the Ministry of Interior. Under Article 47(1) IPA the decision in the accelerated procedure has to be taken within two months since the applicant lodged the application. There are no explicit consequences listed in the law if the time limit is not respected in practice.

The accelerated procedure can also be applied at the border, airport or port. In this case the decision has to be taken as soon as possible, but no later than within 14 days. If the decision is not taken in this time limit the applicant is transferred to the Asylum Home.[2]

 In 2020, 122 applications were processed in the accelerated procedure and rejected as manifestly unfounded. The majority of asylum seekers whose applications were rejected as manifestly unfounded in the accelerated procedure were from Morocco (58), Algeria (29) and Pakistan (22).[3] One application was lodged by an unaccompanied minor.[4] This is a large increase in comparison to 2019 when only 60 applications were processed in the accelerated procedure.[5] This large increase is attributed to the change in practice regarding detention from May 2020 to the end of August 2020. During that time period, the authorities began to detain asylum seekers again, despite the fact that there were no legislative changes made since the decision of the Supreme Court in March 2019.[6] The Supreme Court found that the provisions of the IPA are insufficient, as they do not contain the definition of the risk of absconding (see Grounds for detention). If possible, detained individuals were processed in the accelerated procedure in order to ensure that the procedure would be finished before the end of the detention, so as to facilitate the return of those refused asylum. However, cases of those who were refused asylum and were then returned to Croatia based on the readmission agreement, instead of their countries of origin, were detected. The readmission agreement with Croatia allows the return of those refused asylum, if their asylum procedure has been completed within less than one year.[7] Refused asylum seekers were processed in the accelerated procedure and returned to Croatia, from where the majority were pushed back to Bosnia (see Access to the territory and push backs). The practice of processing the applications of detained asylum seekers in the accelerated procedure was stopped at the end of August 2020.

Personal interview

According to the IPA, the Migration directorate conducts a personal interview before making the decision in the accelerated procedure.[8] The law does not stipulate any circumstances in which the personal interview can be omitted. The personal interviews are conducted in the same way as described under Regular Procedure: Personal Interview.


The appeal against a decision taken in the accelerated procedure has to be lodged within 8 days of notification.[9] The suspensive effect of the appeal is automatic,[10] and the Administrative Court has to take a decision in 7 days,[11] although court procedures are usually much longer than that in practice.

 Legal assistance

The law does not contain any special provisions regarding legal representation of asylum seekers during the accelerated procedure. The same rules and practice as in the Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance apply.

[1] Administrative Court, Decision I U 1544/2017, available at:

[2] Article 43(1) IPA.

[3] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, January 2021.

[4] Official statistics provided by the Migration directorate, January 2021.

[5] Official statistics provided by the Migration Office, February 2020.

[6] Supreme Court Decision, X Ips 1/2019 from 13 March 2019, available at:

[7] Article 3(c) of the Readmission agreement between Slovenia and Croatia.

[8] Article 46(1) IPA.

[9] Article 70(1) IPA.

[10] Article 70(3) IPA.

[11] Article 71(1) IPA.

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the first report
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation